Current Events > I've never understood why it's impossible to go faster than light*.

(+) Yeah! (+)

*or so we think

Explain to me why we can't move faster than the speed of light.

---

Because of the nature of time itself.

It's a bit like asking why you can't stand up and sit down at the same time.
---

pinky0926 posted...

Because of the nature of time itself.

It's a bit like asking why you can't stand up and sit down at the same time.

You've used that analogy before, and although I agreed with what you said at the time, I don't know.

Explain to me.

---

*now, not know
---

Sunhawk posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Because of the nature of time itself.

It's a bit like asking why you can't stand up and sit down at the same time.

You've used that analogy before, and although I agreed with what you said at the time, I don't know.

Explain to me.

The faster something gets the heavier it becomes. Time slows as you get faster. When you reach the speed of light, time stops.

To give another analogy, you're basically saying "I've slowed my car down to a complete stop. Why can't I go slower?"

This is basically what relativity means.
---

pinky0926 posted...

It's a bit like asking why you can't stand up and sit down at the same time.

---

its like a bullet hitting its target before the trigger had been pulled

---

Why is the speed of light the point where a fast-moving object experiences the stopping of time? That's sort of what I don't get.
---

Theoretically a warp bubble could go faster than light, but it would require too much energy to make it possible.
---

You can stand up and sit down at the same time though. Just get into a sitting position with nothing under you.
---

Sunhawk posted...

Why is the speed of light the point where a fast-moving object experiences the stopping of time? That's sort of what I don't get.

The speed of light isn't merely a finite speed like any other speed. It only appears that way as an outside observer.

Think of it more like a fundamental constant in the universe. The speed of light being the fastest thing in the universe is fundamentally true, just like gravity causes things to pull together and

This all makes more sense if you think of the speed of light as infinite speed. Trying to go faster than infinity speed is a bit like trying to multiply any number by 0 and expecting a result greater than 0.
---

---

Sunhawk posted...

Why is the speed of light the point where a fast-moving object experiences the stopping of time? That's sort of what I don't get.

It's all based on our current understanding of the laws of physics, which can and do change as we learn more. I just saw an article the other day that black hole research is disproving Newton.
---

SiO4 posted...

only if you going backward, tho.
---

There's probably a better way to put it.

Think of space and time not as two different things, but different points on the same map. Say that time is north of you and space is east of you.

You can choose which direction to go in, but the more east you go, the less north you go, and vice versa. If you go completely east you stop going north at all, and vice versa.

"The speed of light" is the fixed speed that you can travel in. You can't change this. So really all you can change is what direction you go in - the faster you go in one direction the slower you go in the other direction.

To go faster than this would effectively be to say make the locations of space and time closer together.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2JCoIGyGxc" data-time="

---

It's that thing with relativistic mass - as you move faster, your mass increases, and it does so in increasingly large amounts. Eventually this levels off at the speed of light, where you'd need an infinite amount of mass to be at the speed.
So anything that doesn't have zero rest mass (eg. light) can't get there.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-89989dd5f56dc4ff39f141344fa12f97

Speed of light actually has nothing to do with light, the speed of light is the speed of causality in a vacuum. It's the speed at which gauge bosons can affect different parts of the universe. Electromagnetism, gravity, etc.

Two parts of the universe cannot affect each other faster than the speed of causality.

---

DarkRoast posted...

Speed of light actually has nothing to do with light, the speed of light is the speed of causality in a vacuum. It's the speed at which gauge bosons can affect different parts of the universe. Electromagnetism, gravity, etc.

Two parts of the universe cannot affect each other faster than the speed of causality.

I think the questions asked here are: Why is this the speed of causality is the question? Why not more? Why not less? Why is it fixed at that amount?

DarkRoast posted...

Speed of light actually has nothing to do with light, the speed of light is the speed of causality in a vacuum. It's the speed at which gauge bosons can affect different parts of the universe. Electromagnetism, gravity, etc.

Two parts of the universe cannot affect each other faster than the speed of causality.

Unless you dive into quantum physics with stuff like quantum entanglement.

---

Light: *sticks out hand for handshake*

TC: *reaches hand out*

Light: *yanks hand back* TOO SLOW!
---

don't think of it as the speed of light. it's actually the speed of a massless particle. photons, which are the particle constituents of light, don't have mass. because of the relation between mass and speed, the less mass an object has, the faster it goes. since photons have no mass, they go at the maximum speed

that's the easiest way to understand it without getting into quantum mechanics
---

Crazyman93 posted...

I just saw an article the other day that black hole research is disproving Newton.

you understand that that very research helped further confirm einstein's theory of relativity and that in your attempt to unironically pull the "science is a liar sometimes card" you just gave proof that our understanding of this topic is in fact not changing?
---

Because if you went faster than light you wouldn't be able to see where you were going

You'd smack into a wall and the universe would explode

---

eston posted...

Because if you went faster than light you wouldn't be able to see where you were going

You'd smack into a wall and the universe would explode

If you've ever calculated the amount of force a mass moving faster or at the speed of light would generate if it hit an object, it's completely ridiculous. It's actually why the scene in The Last Jedi sort of broke the idea of what the best weapon in the Star Wars universe is.


---

Also to the guy who said it disproved Newton.

Newtonian physics were disproven when Mercury's orbit was mapped in the 1800's. Einstein found the solution in General Relativity, which the black hole thing you mentioned actually supports.

That said, it really irks me when people say Newton was disproven. Newton's physics are remarkably accurate for almost every situation except for very massive, very fast objects. So accurate, in fact, that even NASA uses standard Newtonian calculations for most things. The man was a complete and utter genius. If anything, General Relativity is just a refined version of Newton's physical calculations that include spacetime curvature.


---

The real answer is how much energy is required to move anything with mass at that speed

iirc moving a human of average mass at 99.99...% the speed of light would require more energy in Joules than the entire human race uses in a year
---

No one knows. It's all theory right now.
---

Knowledge_King posted...

No one knows. It's all theory right now.

No, we know clearly why. Because the amount of energy required to move at light-speed rises asymptotically to infinity the closer you get. It's also impossible due to the nature of how moving faster than causality would break the universe. The gauge bosons you would be emitting would actually be slower than you, which would break the universe in really bizarre, fundamental ways.

---

ThyCorndog posted...

don't think of it as the speed of light. it's actually the speed of a massless particle. photons, which are the particle constituents of light, don't have mass. because of the relation between mass and speed, the less mass an object has, the faster it goes. since photons have no mass, they go at the maximum speed

that's the easiest way to understand it without getting into quantum mechanics

I was trying to think of a really easy way to say it, but this is actually a really good answer if you want a basic idea of it.

---

DarkRoast posted...

No, we know clearly why. Because the amount of energy required to move at light-speed rises asymptotically to infinity the closer you get.

That's 100% theory though. We haven't done it or gotten close to proving it.
---

DarkRoast posted...

Two parts of the universe cannot affect each other faster than the speed of causality.

quantum entanglement begs to differ

Didn't the LHC recently create a particle that was observed moving faster than the speed of light? Doesn't this disprove the comments in this topic? Did I imagine the fine people at the LHC doing this?
---

It was believed that the Alcubierre drive would require a minimum amount of energy about equal to the mass-energy of the planet Jupiter, but they discovered that it could be powered by a mass about the size of a spacecraft like the Voyager 1.
That is a huge difference.
---

Sunhawk posted...

Didn't the LHC recently create a particle that was observed moving faster than the speed of light?

no, it turned out to be a mistake or error
---

Sunhawk posted...

Didn't the LHC recently create a particle that was observed moving faster than the speed of light? Doesn't this disprove the comments in this topic? Did I imagine the fine people at the LHC doing this?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly
They either made a mistake or they decided to cover it up.
---

Foppe posted...

or they decided to cover it up.

highly doubtful. they'd be making a hugely important discovery if it turned out to be something real. the kind you definitely don't want to cover up
---

Woodger posted...

It's that thing with relativistic mass - as you move faster, your mass increases, and it does so in increasingly large amounts. Eventually this levels off at the speed of light, where you'd need an infinite amount of mass to be at the speed.
So anything that doesn't have zero rest mass (eg. light) can't get there.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-89989dd5f56dc4ff39f141344fa12f97

There is no such thing as relativistic mass. Kinetic energy and momentum are the relativistic variables. Both kinetic energy and momentum have their Newtonian formula multiplied by the Lorentz factor =1/(1-v/c).
Relativistic kinetic energy=mc(-1)
Relativistic momentum p=mv

Sunhawk posted...

Didn't the LHC recently create a particle that was observed moving faster than the speed of light? Doesn't this disprove the comments in this topic? Did I imagine the fine people at the LHC doing this?

The anomalous reading that was caused by faulty equipment was later corrected. The speed of light in a vacuum is still absolute.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly
---

Led-Zeppelin posted...

quantum entanglement begs to differ

Quantum entanglement has nothing to do with the speed of light. It doesn't violate causality.

---

DarkRoast posted...

Also to the guy who said it disproved Newton.

Newtonian physics were disproven when Mercury's orbit was mapped in the 1800's. Einstein found the solution in General Relativity, which the black hole thing you mentioned actually supports.

That said, it really irks me when people say Newton was disproven. Newton's physics are remarkably accurate for almost every situation except for very massive, very fast objects. So accurate, in fact, that even NASA uses standard Newtonian calculations for most things. The man was a complete and utter genius. If anything, General Relativity is just a refined version of Newton's physical calculations that include spacetime curvature.

What was he wrong about when it comes to very massive, very fast objects and their physics?

---

What was he wrong about when it comes to very massive, very fast objects and their physics?

Newton assumed the speed of gravity is infinite, among other things.

---

Ah, interesting.
---

So is space time sort of like a fabric with different sized balls on it, and bigger ones cant move as fast because it pulls down more of the fabric into a dip? the bigger the more attracted other balls are to it?

It's kind of an awkward question, like asking why gravity exists. We don't really know why; it's just the way it is.

But it's based on the concept of causality, which determines which events can affect others. In traditional physics, an event could affect those taking place after them without violating causality. In relativistic physics, an event can only affect those taking place after them and within a certain distance determined by the amount of time between them. The distance and time are related by the speed of light.

So you can't go faster than the speed of light because that would violate causality.
---

Just want to point out that, for most intents and purposes, Newtonian physics is as accurate as General Relativity but is substantially easier to calculate. If we're going to criticize it for being incomplete because it doesn't integrate spacetime curvature, we can make the same criticism about General Relativity and quantum physics.

But yes, the speed of light is not really about light. It's the speed at which the universe can directly impact another part of the universe. All of the Gauge Bosons (Light, Strong, Weak) move at the speed of causality in a vacuum. The speed of light could easily be called the speed of gravity or the speed of any fundamental force.

---

light cannot escape a black hole

therefore the speed of dark is faster
---

FL81 posted...

light cannot escape a black hole

therefore the speed of dark is faster

Yes
---

Irony posted...

FL81 posted...

light cannot escape a black hole

therefore the speed of dark is faster

Yes

Fun fact. Cold never moves. Only Heat does.
---

So should we be tapping into the Speedforce or the Lightforce?
---

I just figured it was cause light has no resting mass. No weight of its own to slow it down.
---